And in games without these difficulty modes? Where large sections of the game are locked behind challenge?

What about them?

Different strokes for different folks I say. Hard games exist, you're not forced to buy them, and you don't have the authority to dictate what devs create on their own time and money. This is not unique to video games either. Novice readers are not forced to buy Beyond Good and Evil or Force and Fanaticism.

If Goku's power level increases at the same rate till the end of DBGT as it does till the end of the Frieza saga, as a SS4 Goku would have a PL of roughly 939 Quinoctogintillion. For reference that is a 260 digit number. A PL of 14,600 is required to destroy an earth sized planet. There are about 2 nonillion earths worth of mass in the universe. That means SS4 Goku can destroy the universe about 32 Octosexagintillion times over. There's a reason they made Goku a god at the end of GT.

People have always idolized those who were good at something. I.E. showed great skill. I think "fetishizing" is a bit overly dramatic, but again, lauding those that are good at something is nothing new in the least. It just happens to be about video games now.

And along that same vein, as the article ultimately points out in far too many words, some people are better at some things than others. I can't beat even the first few SECONDS of Flappy Bird, or whatever that game was called, but I've seen videos of people getting into the hundreds of levels. I like bullet-hell style games, but I suck at them. But I've seen people play these games making minute movements to dodge bullets and just blow the game out of the water. That's insane. I don't hate them for it. I'm not envious or jealous. Good on them for taking the time to 'git gud'. It didn't happen over night, they trained for it.

I can, however, clear Dark Souls perfectly fine. And I know several people who can't even get past the first (what I consider tutorial) boss. Are companies to be penalized because they make games that not 100% of gamers out there can get through? It's childish to even think that way. Making games too easy will push away far more players than making it complicated.

Originally Posted by Warwithin

Politicians put their hand on the BIBLE and swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION. They did not put their hand on the CONSTITUTION and swear to uphold the BIBLE.

Originally Posted by Adam Jensen

Except maybe Morgan Freeman. That man could convince God to be an atheist with that voice of his . . .

Honestly when i see review where the guy reviewing the game is really really bad then Yeah, i judge ham on it.

So so so many review of d3 where like this when it Got out. "It's the best game ever and the graphics are so good" said people after completing the game once on normal difficulty. That's not what gamers are interested in anymore though.

I see it as a valid point. Someone who plays a shitton of pic games is bound to get better at some point in general.

The whole point is that ALL videogames are an exercise of skill to some degree. Some require very low skills, others require way more to the point not everyone can do it.

There's nothing like "should devs cater to X number of people". Hell, all devs want to sell their games to the most people possible, why wouldn't you do that, so you ALWAYS cater to everyone - or at least you try. Then, you can design the game as a niche so "exclusivity" makes more people attracted to it because "i'm good enough to play it", or focus on story, or simply make it so everyone can get into it.

All of this has nothing to do with the OP presented issue and linked article (which to me is as valid ad banana peels thrown by a monkey). The real problem is not "everyone should be good at video games" nor "all videogame critics should be good at video games".

The point is "videogame critics should not evaluate a game based on their personal experience or skill". Basically, if you're shit at a game, you cannot tell the game is shit because you're not able to play it. If that's the case, then it's not a job for you. Make other people play and see if the game has flaws and hear feedback from people that actually doesn't have any interest to push or punish a game.

The whole "skill" and "GIT GUD" shit is always the same: people who cannot have decent social relationships and are basically behaving like 8yo brats that must always be better than any other. Until you're playing a competitive game (or a sport for what it counts) where your personal skill is the only meaning of serious progression, a videogame isn't good or bad based on what people are able to do. Being bad at videogames is completely normal, it's up to you getting better but also no one's forcing anyone to complete Dark Souls NG+++++++++++++ naked with a rubber cicken as weapon.

Game journalists actively hating on gaming itself, and is in the end just mouth pieces for sjw bullshit is nothing new.
Literal cancer on in the industry, we'd be better off without every single shitstain of them.

Not really. LoL does require a lot of meta-knowledge I guess because they shit up the game with dozens of heroes for the $$$, but the basic gameplay is massive amounts of anal click spam with archaic controls.

Overwatch, I jumped in on the free weekend and in my third game ever already went 17-4. Then next match I go 3-5 because if you don't have a decent matched team you literally can't do anything in that game because every hero is half a functional character and the Blob is King. Besides that quick match is a ghost town because the core gameplay is shit. People basically only play in arcade and fuck around in Lucio ball and DM etc.

To be fair there is far too much focus on 'skill' these days. Especially in the playerbase of multiplayer games like WoW.

What happened to just having fun? Why ask for the introduction of hair-tearingly frustrating 'challenges'?

You don't seem to understand what's going on. The article is defending a guy that wasn't able to beat the first level of a game and struggled to get past the tutorial. Both of which are actually extremely easy things to overcome. It wasn't a "hair-tearingly frustrating 'challenge'"... It was basic.

Also, "hair-tearingly frustrating" for you may be exciting and fun for someone else. Fun is HIGHLY subjective.

Originally Posted by Mall Security

Yes 16yo women are beautiful, and yes it is natural to be attracted towards them.

ABut Video Games span such a wide variety of things, why does it have to be about 'challenge'? People can still and should be able to enjoy video games without the need for 'skill'.

Because challenge is one of the unique things to games as a medium - One that is entirely devoid from novels, flim and music. That's not to say a game should be exclusively focused on being a challenge to the detriment of it's other aspects, but requiring a challenge to be overcome is what makes games distinct as their own separate media.

Skill and challenge are not the same thing! Lots of games offer mental challenges without requiring any mechanical skills at all. Chess would be an obvious example, it's a very challenging game to play at any level outside of absolute beginner, yet requires no skilled mechanical input from either player. Hearthstone and the prevelance of TCG's are good examples as Video games, they provide a challenge with a negligable skill barrier.

Originally Posted by urasim

The article is defending a guy that wasn't able to beat the first level of a game and struggled to get past the tutorial. Both of which are actually extremely easy things to overcome.

It's defending him for all the wrong reasons too. The core of the argument is that one is not required to be skilled in a video game in order to have a valid opinion on it. To an extent, that is correct - You can critique other aspects of the game, it's artstyle, it's presentation and so forth. On the other hand, I would expect that someone who's job very explictily involves having to play lots of video games to at least be able to play enough of the game to give an accurate impression of it. You cannot be critical of the game play if you are unable to play the game.

It's also making the case that experiencing a video game, through let's play's and such, is as valid as holding the controller and playing yourself. This I have to disagree with, there are lots of issues with a game that can only come to light when you're playing it yourself. Maybe the controls are stiff and slow to respond? I'd want to know about something like that before I bought the game. Maybe that one awesome special move has an incrediably difficult input requirement to execute? You're not going to find that out until you can play it yourself.

Without the reviewer getting hands-on with the game they're critiquing they're of no use to the consumer. If the reviewer is just going to watch someone else play the game and form an opinion piece about what they've seen, the consumer might as well skip reading their article and just watch gameplay footage from someone "skilled" at the game themselves.

You don't seem to understand what's going on. The article is defending a guy that wasn't able to beat the first level of a game and struggled to get past the tutorial.

No, i think the biggest problem here is that the article is defending the capacity, of someone who is really bad at playing a videogame, of giving the game a fair Review.
I do not think that is possible at all. i know for a fact that i must not give my opinion as a gamer about game genres i dislike, because first i am biased, and second i do not understand the good in those games because i dislike them.
If someone asks me my opinion about for example RPGs, i am more than happy to answer, because it is the genre i like the most, but i would not dare give any opinion about a sports game.
I assume, that someone who is suffering for completing a videogame, it is not gonna be able to give that game a fair review, that is the only problem of not being skilled with a videogame you are judging.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW: the opposite would also be true, someone who is too skilled with a videogame, might also not be capable of giving a fair review, he could find the game too easy, and while that would be true for him, it would not be so for the average gamer.

People have always idolized those who were good at something. I.E. showed great skill. I think "fetishizing" is a bit overly dramatic, but again, lauding those that are good at something is nothing new in the least. It just happens to be about video games now.

And along that same vein, as the article ultimately points out in far too many words, some people are better at some things than others. I can't beat even the first few SECONDS of Flappy Bird, or whatever that game was called, but I've seen videos of people getting into the hundreds of levels. I like bullet-hell style games, but I suck at them. But I've seen people play these games making minute movements to dodge bullets and just blow the game out of the water. That's insane. I don't hate them for it. I'm not envious or jealous. Good on them for taking the time to 'git gud'. It didn't happen over night, they trained for it.

I can, however, clear Dark Souls perfectly fine. And I know several people who can't even get past the first (what I consider tutorial) boss. Are companies to be penalized because they make games that not 100% of gamers out there can get through? It's childish to even think that way. Making games too easy will push away far more players than making it complicated.

I agree completely. The article linked in the OP's post was spawned by another review of someone who was very VERY bad at a game and had no business reviewing it in the first place. It had nothing to do with the game's design(since it's a fairly run of the mill 2D platformer) and everything to do with the person reviewing.

It's not that videogame culture needs to stop fetishizing skill, it's that people who have no idea what they're doing in a game need to stop blaming everything other than themselves for it. It's a game. It's ok to fail! In fact, the only time it's NOT ok to fail is when you fail to admit you're doing anything wrong.

If you honestly believe that flying is bad for WoW, then you haven't fully considered the issue, and are just mindlessly repeating something someone else said.

I see nothing wrong with a reviewer who's bad at certain games reviewing a game he's bad at. A single reviewer is just one perspective. People gravitate to reviewers who have similar views as them about what is fun, what is challenging, etc. Even people who are bad at a specific style of games should have someone to look to for information about whether a game is a good buy/fit for them.